Grieving mom risks arrest to meet with President

Cindy Sheehan became an antiwar activist after her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year. She wants to tell President Bush to pull American troops out of Iraq now, and she wants to tell him to his face. So she drove down to his ranch in Crawford, TX.

Blocked by police a few miles down the road from the ranch, she and growing number of supporters vow to camp out until Bush agrees to meet with her — or until police drag them away — whichever comes first. Apparently, it will most likely be the latter, as she has been warned that if she’s not gone by Thursday (the day Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch,) she and her companions will be arrested as a “national security threat.”

The White House has released few details of such sessions, which Mr. Bush holds regularly as he travels the country, but generally portrays them as emotional and an opportunity for the president to share the grief of the families. In Ms. Sheehan’s telling, though, Mr. Bush did not know her son’s name when she and her family met with him in June 2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as “Mom” throughout the meeting.

By Ms. Sheehan’s account, Mr. Bush said to her that he could not imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. Ms. Sheehan said she broke in and told Mr. Bush that Casey was her son, and that she thought he could imagine what it would be like since he has two daughters and that he should think about what it would be like sending them off to war.

Hmmm. Perhaps if President Bush could imagine losing a loved one, he might have thought twice before sending nearly 1,800 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq.

UPDATE: Cindy Sheehan has posted a first-hand report to Daily Kos. Amongst the many interesting topics she touches upon, is this:

Another big story that was going on today was about my first meeting with Bush in June of 2004. For you all I would like to clarify a few things. First of all, I did meet with George, and that is not a secret. I have written about it and been interviewed about it. I will stand by my recounting of the meeting. His behavior was rude and inappropriate. My behavior in June of 2004 is irrelevant to what is going on in 2005. I was in deep shock and deep grief. The grief is still there, but the shock has worn off and the deep anger has set in. And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos. The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?

And if you ask me, it’s the lying president who should be considered the national security threat, not Cindy.

Share:

Related

Comments

President Bush thought long and hard and reviewed all of the available inteligence before making the difficult and correct decision to go to war with Iraq. Thanks to restrictions and budget cuts imposed on the CIA by the Clinton Administration and the (at that time) DemocRATic congress the information Bush recieved was not as good as it should have been, but he made the correct decision anyway.

If there was a mother who lost her son in Iraq waiting for the president then surely there was a wife or some kids who lost their daddy on 9-11 waiting to thank him. After all there were 3,000 of them. Oh, thats right you donks dont care about that.

And what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Oh yeah, I forgot, brown Muslim people are all pretty much the same, and it was a convenient excuse go try and take over an oil producing nation. Hasn’t quite worked out that way, but what the hell.

marks @ 6 “But she had her chance to tell him ï¿½pull American troops out of Iraq now, and [ï¿½] tell him to his faceï¿½ once already. Why didnï¿½t she then?”

marks… you callous shitheel, she had no idea at the first meeting that Bush was a drugged out thug. She was a grieving Mother,expecting intelligence and compassion from the president of the USA, you shitferbrains!

Why is it that you always assume that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid? Could it be that you are slightly arrogant? Is it remotely possible that another intellegent person could look at the same facts that you do and come to a different conclusion? I did not connect 9/11 with the Iraq war, you did! The first Iraq war ended in a conditional ceasefire, the condition being that Sadam comply with UN resolutions. Sadam failed to comply with 17 resolutions, so it was necessary to either resume hostilities or abandon the UN as a toothless relec.

If this war is such a great adventure in bringing democracy to the Middle East…or revenge for the worst foreign attack on our shores…then where are all the sons of republican politician war supporters stationed. Why aren’t all these young campus republican supporters of the war lining up to volunteer for their fearless leader’s great adventure in nation building. What about the great patriot’s own kids…surely such a public spirited family would INSIST that the needs of the Nation be placed above their own. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I spit on them and the graves of their fathers.

Donnageddon: Tut Tut that sounds a lot like hate speech, and I know how much you libs dislike that. It is too bad that the ladies genuine grief has caused her to dishonor her sons sacrifice in a noble cause. May God grant her peace.

Gary, it is hate speech, and you simply do not understand (because you listen to nothing by Limbaugh, Hannity. Savage and FOX news) that we libs really HATE asshole’s like you America, Soldier-Hating, Democracy-Despising, Torture-Loving ass!

Fuck you Gary, and tell all your Neo-Con friends that you have an enemy in the American Patriot Liberal Public!

Donnagon: I am not surprised that your total inability to intelligently discuss issues, and your narrow minded extreme leftist agenda leads you to spew hate and insults. I had hoped that there were intelligent liberals out there, but in view of your response, intellegent liberal is probably an oxymoron.

Gary, you REALLY think that “the difficult and correct decision to go to war with Iraq. Thanks to restrictions and budget cuts imposed on the CIA by the Clinton Administration and the (at that time) DemocRATic congress the information Bush recieved was not as good as it should have been, but he made the correct decision anyway.”

Is an INTELLIGENT comment?

You are so full of shit and propoganda, you are like ballast for the Bad ship Neo-Con

Gary, if you want to see hate speech, read Ann Coulter. She calls liberals “traitors” and says we should be put in “concentration camps” or “executed.”

Let me explain something to you, Gary. You right-wing fuckers started the name-calling and hate talk! You chose to come to HorsesAss, a notoriously liberal blog, to pick fights here. Don’t expect mercy. Posting on HA is a voluntary activity. If you don’t like how you’re treated on this blog, post somewhere else.

By the way Gary, if you want an intelligent discussion, then you need to do your own thinking and research. Everybody here has heard the right-wing bullshit talking points. We don’t need you to reiterate them. When you get the facts straight, then we can have a discussion.

as much as I enjoy reading Donnageddon endless intellectual insults, I have to ponder where is the post about the arrested UN Oil for Food Program staffers, where is the friggin outcry Goldy? What no cry for justice for the starving children, no railing against those people selling them selves for money, no questioning their sexuality, and threatening to “out” them….the silence is deafening…

as am I, but remember not too long ago…..families got post cards as offical notice of the death of a service member. No phone call, no visit by the military/chaplan, certainly no visit by the President of the United States.

The real reason is that we have wanted/needed to tell Saudi to kiss off for some time, but needed a strategic position in the area to replace our Saudi positions. Saddam and his nose-thumbing at the UN provided a perfect opportunity.

Since we had bad intelligence on the WMD’s, I can imagine that we also didn’t have a clue that France & others were tangled up in the Oil-For-Food Scandal and wouldn’t want that rock overturned.

Oil… ehhh… maybe to some extent, but a lot of the price issues have to do more with refining capacity.

If Bush had a brain 1/2 the size of a pea he would invite Ms. Sheehan to his ranch, graciously listen to what she has to say, explain his reasons for going to war, offer condolences, then face the TV cameras and say, “Isn’t it great that we live in a country where you can disagree with the president to his face?

Roger Rabbit is Harry Poon. Roger Rabbit was also Don/Alan/Priscilla/thatPrick/DubyaSux and 93 other identities. Roger morphs in and out of many identities and carries on discussions with himself. Why you might ask?? Because he wants HorsesAss to appear to be a legitimate Blog with more than 5 contributors…and because Roger Roger Rabbit is a crazy FUCK with no life!

It sounds to me that the only way the Left will be happy with the people fighting, is if they can find a way to place rich white folks’ children into the thick of it.

Hmmm….. could they be thinking of a DRAFT?

Funny, about a year ago there was a lot of hype surrounding the restarting of a draft in the military. The Left went NUTS, claiming it was proof that Bush was evil and would enslave us all. I even remember McDermitt going onstage at Pearl Jam concerts warning everyone twhat they were planning to do to the youth of America. And a lot of people thought they were right…….UNTIL they read who actually SPONSORED the bill. It was all sponsored by Democrats, INCLUDING Jim himself. All I ask is for a bit of honesty from BOTH sides, not propaganda. And I am getting more B.S. from both sides than a fertilizer plant. No wonder I despise the parties anymore.

Domo

PS-Gary, I feel your pain. I have definately seen a coarsening of debate here, from actual debate to now getting pre-emptive ‘fuck yous.’ Heinlein was evidently right, I give it about 20 more years.

“President Bush thought long and hard and reviewed all of the available inteligence before making the difficult and correct decision to go to war with Iraq. Thanks to restrictions and budget cuts imposed on the CIA by the Clinton Administration and the (at that time) DemocRATic congress the information Bush recieved was not as good as it should have been, but he made the correct decision anyway.”

Comment by Gary— 8/8/05 @ 10:22 pm

“Would you stop with the insults and discuss the issues already! Insults and profanity are devices used by people who have lost a debate.”

marks… you callous shitheel, she had no idea at the first meeting that Bush was a drugged out thug. She was a grieving Mother,expecting intelligence and compassion from the president of the USA, you shitferbrains!

Thank you for that impassioned and typically donnageddon-esque response. At some point, you will burst that blood vessel over your left eye… unless your heart realizes just how useless it’s job is trying to supply your brain with adequate oxygen and quits altogether.

All: OK I give up. I will quit searching for any sort of thoughtful discussion on this blog. You guys just continue to reinforce each others hate, and whatever you do don’t let the truth interfere with your pre-concieved notions. If you keep repeating moveon.org talking points to each other long enough, you can shut out the real world entirely.

If it weren’t for the counterpoint of the Conservatives on this blog, it would be as dull as, say.. SP. Don’t get me wrong, I still read ’em both, but HA is *fun* to read. Mostly because it’s like seeing people from both sides go dangerously off their meds, without the inherent danger of being too close to them.

I’m going to do something useful. I’ll buy Goldy a beer for providing me some good entertainment. Hell, I’ll buy him 10.

I’m still waiting for Cynical to call someone a LEFTIST PINHEAD. I love that.

re 3: When I talk about the issues, conservatives realize they’re in over their heads and start in with the personal attacks. So, I’ll just short circuit your whole sorry spectacle and just satisfy myself with pointing out that you are a big, swastica-shaped bunghole and every thought or utterance you attempt comes out of that foul orifice and identifies itself as the LITTLE EICHMANNesqe railings of the NEO-FASCIST CON-ARTIST that you are. The first person that a good liar convinces of his lies is non other than himself. That is a large part of the reason why this has become a political war between us. The lady camping outside of Bush’s Crawford, TX NEVERLAND is right and ALL neo-cons are WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Oh, and Mr Cynical is a LITTLE EICHMANN. So is Puddybud and so is Paul Wolfowitz. Karl Rove is a fat, self-hating gay in the fashion or Roy Cohn and Mr Cynical. In addition, Rove is a LITTLE GOEBBELS (or was it gerbil?).

Harry Poon ( Question: “Poon…. That’s an unusual name! What is it?” Answer, Fletch: “I’m not sure, but I think it’s Scottish.” )is an alias used by Chevy Chase in one of the FLETCH movies. Let us all mourn now for the tragic loss of Maury “The Dorf” Dorffman. RR is not responsible for HP.

We’ve been having flame and cite wars over here for the last few months. Go look at the archives if you want to see your positions (presented by others MUCH MORE able than you) DEMOLISHED…chapter and verse.

Recently our Congressman Doc Hastings spoke at a send off for soldiers in Yakima. Apperantly he upset some families by reciting Bush’s talking points for the war.

Perhaps she should start with the people who have the ability to trump Bush’s authority to keep troops in Iraq. Bush is an asshole who isn’t listening to the American people so why would anyone waste their time. Doc is still a local boy down here and is pretty much a braindead parrot for the republican agenda. But even I am sure he has a beating heart.

While I can understand her grief at losing her son, she must realize she didn’t “send him off to war”. He volunteered to go to war by joining the armed forces. It’s unfortunate to lose anyone in war. But that doesn’t automatically make Bush a bad guy. If it makes her feel better to go make a fool of herself and bash the president, fine. But I think screwing with the secret service, no matter who is the president, is going to get her into trouble. If she wants to do the “indignant protestor being dragged off by police” and get her 5 seconds of fame, great. But I for one am not swayed by it. I think Bush is a decent guy, just as I thought Clinton was a decent guy, Reagan, Carter etc. These antics are just going to make her more unhappy, and do absolutely nothing to advance her “cause” whatever it is.

Sheehan sounds like a grieving mother who is being manipulated by anti-war groups. Her first appraisal of the meeting last year with Bush sounded sincere. Her latest rendition sounds like what happens after a story is told many times over, and someone gives their spin on it. It now has no resemblance to the original. The fact the Wolf Blitzer is too lazy to do his homework and ask pointed questions just indicates the lameness of CNN as a news source.

She is sadly just a circus act now. Too bad she dishonors her son with these antics. I bet he would be thrilled to know his mother is on TV talking about the pointlessness of his death, and the worthlessness of a cause he believed in.

I agree with Gary and Left Behind (44): Let’s get the draft going! That way we can send more and more young people over to Iraq to die. Won’t it be wonderful? They’ll all be heroes! Everyone will be proud that their children died so that gas prices can be higher. The satanists who are running the White House (I’m not revealing a secret there, am I?) will be happy. The satanists at Halliburton will be happy. The only people who won’t be happy are people who are out of touch with where America is heading. Those liberals are such dummies.

I just love a rational argument. Now anyone who disagrees with the anti-war view is a “satanist”. If you don’t have a real argument, by all means expose your idiocy.

From what I hear, al-qaeda is spending lots of time and energy on fighting US troops in Iraq. That means a lot less resources for the rest of the world. Witness the attack on London. Yes, people died, but the first attack didn’t go as planned, and the second one was a failure.

Janet S (to paraphrase Saturday Night Live) you ignorant slut! Retribution is coming to the White House and Congress. We are going to slowly but surely turn them all out of office. The Democrats will regain both in the next few elections. Why will we do this? Because the people of this country see that:

1. Bush lied to get us into war 2. Bush gives billions to the pharmaceutical companies, and we can barely afford OTC meds 3. Bush gives billions to the oil companies, and we can barely afford gas 4. Bush (and co) used their power to reveal a CIA operative to the public as retribution 5. 45 million plus Americans in poverty 6. 60 million plus Americans without health insurance 7. DOW is STILL below where it was when Bush took over 8. Bush cannot and willnot protect our border with Mexico 9. Bush will not sign the Voting Rights Act 10. Bush is anti-gay rights 11. Bush is using a political end-run to put an ultra-conservative on the Supreme Court for the next 50 years 12. Bush is too cowardly to talk to a grieving mother of one of the soldiers who died in Iraq

On that last point, why won’t he talk to her. “I talked to her already” is pretty lame. “I’m on vacation” is pretty stupid. “I have too much work to do” is just a lie…

The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars — even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.

The unrelenting quest for stories depicting American troops as victims — including even front-page stories about the financial problems of some National Guardsmen called to active duty — has created a virtual reality in the media that has no place for heroes.

Senator John Kerry has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen “a backdoor draft,” as if joining the reserves or the National Guard is supposed to mean an exemption from ever having to fight. The theme of troops as victims has been a steady drumbeat in the media, because of the way the media have chosen to filter the news, filtering out heroes, among other things.

All the American deaths in Iraq since the war began are not even half of the deaths of U.S. Marines taking the one island of Iwo Jima in a couple of months of fighting. And Iwo Jima was just one battle in a war that was raging on other fronts around the world simultaneously and continuing for nearly four long years.

It is not the casualties which are unprecedented but the media filtering and the gullibility of those who accept the virtual reality created by the media.

Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States — as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands* in the streets and on campuses across the country. (Read: DUMB ASS LIBERAL SHEEP)

The very people who have been anti-military for years*, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are “honoring” our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out. (Read: COWARDLY DUMB ASS LIBERAL SHEEP)

Has the dumbed-down education in our schools left us so ill-equipped that we cannot see through even the most blatant hypocrisy?

I would like to thank Cindy Sheehan for being just as courageous as her son. She has shown America what our President is really made of. It has also revealed a great deal about these “so called” journalists ala OReilly, Hannity, etc.

Thank you for being a courageous American. It is people like you who created this country and made it the great nation it is.

ILoveToBeAnAsshole – Well then, maybe you can tell us why we are in Iraq. After all, most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. UBL is part of the Saudi family. UBL’s bases of operation and training camps were in Afghanistan. The madrasa’s are in Saudi Arabia. Iran has a nuclear program. Iraq has nothing. Iraq had nothing. Iraq was not our enemy. Sadam was powerless.

So, why, exactly, are we in Iraq. I honor all of our soldiers. But I want to know WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ? Can you answer that? One little question….

Fire-one: 1. Talking point 2. Huh? Haven’t heard this complaint. I guess Tylenol is just getting too expensive! 3. Bush is giving millions to oil companies? Really? Out of his own account? What a guy. If you can’t afford gas for your car, take the bus. I bet you are one of those Sound Transit supporters, so don’t be a hypocrite – take public tranportation. 4. The Valerie Plame affair – not a done deal yet. I don’t think it will turn out the way all you Rove haters think it will. 5. Americans in poverty: how many have a drug problem, or have cable TV, or a cell phone? Our poverty cases would be considered middle class in Europe. 6. Health insurance – not the same as health CARE. 7. Internet bubble, anyone? 8. Mexican Border – I give you this one. I agree. 9. Voting Rights Act? Not sure of the arguments. 10. I don’t get the right’s angst with gays, so don’t as me. 11. 50 years on the court? That would mean that John Roberts will still be on the court at the age of 98! 12. Meeting with the nut case on his front lawn would be spun as a loss for him, regardless. He might as well just ignore her. She’s ruining her own case every time she gets on camera. Too bad she is dishonoring her son.

ILoveToBeAnAsshole – So your big argument is that (and I paraphrase) “compared to the Civil War, we haven’t lost very many guys”. My question is, and remains, why did Bush ignore the CIA, the FBI, the UN, Germany, France, and (it appears) Britans intelligence services, and invade Iraq. This has nothing to do with the soldiers. Why Did Bush Invade Iraq?

ILoveToBeAnAsshole – so now your big answer is “talking point”? Well, I must admit, that sounds like something worth dying for…. I know that you are probably a reasonably intelligent person. I know that you are probably troubled as to the reason we invaded Iraq. All you have to do is admit it… Just say it now, you’ll feel better, and you will be true to yourself…

From Goldy’s update: “And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos.”

I have a hard time commenting on this as I don’t want to disparage this mom’s grief or loss, but I do question her assertion that the three reports she cites bolsters her case when in fact they exonerate Bush (especially the Intelligence report) from willful culpability or intent to deceive. There’s been a lot of discussion here on the DSM already, but it raises more question on Britain’s involvement than ours (and why no further discussion at the meeting in question about ‘fixed’ intelligence happened after such a ‘bombshell’ was revealed), and the Senate Intelligence report contradicts what is being alleged in the DSM.

I guess I do question her motivation at this point, I’m sorry to say, as you know the President isn’t going to pull the troops 5 minutes after any meeting and if he would meet with this mom, he’d meet with parents supportive of him, but then be accused of cheap political theatrics, so it’s a no-win situation here.

ILoveToBeAnAsshole – I do know YOU though. YOU ran down to Walmart and got a cheapass American flag made in China. Then you nailed it up to your porch, where it has faded beyond recognition. You hoot and holler at the TV when OReilly and Hannity come on. You email mega-dittos to Rush after his broadcasts. But you won’t use your own brain. You won’t think for yourself. You are just a mega-ditto-brain-OreillyFactor zombie. Guess what? There are going to be twice as many people on this planet in about 30 years, and most of them will be brown skinned, funny talking, foreigners. We will have to figure out how to get along on this planet, all of us. I know you hate this, but it’s coming. You are a dying breed, you Republicans. This is your last hoo-rah. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the “gift of happiness,” took to the nation’s TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush “killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity.”

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan’s visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

“‘I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.’

“The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

“The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

“For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

“‘That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,’ Cindy said.”

Now that MOVEON.ORG has taken advantage of a greiving mom for their propaganda campaign, we see her story changing. I feel sorry that this woman lost her son. But her sone joined up voluntarily and he knew the risks, just as I did when I joined. If I had been killed when I was in the service and my parents used my death for a leftwing publicity stunt, I’d have haunted them from teh grave.

This has to be the lowest of the low of tactics for the traitors of this country to use a mother’s grief for partisan advantage.

Jon – Maybe, just once, I’d like to see a politician just throw the political considerations aside and do what he thought was right. If someone was on my front porch crying, I’d ask them in and talk to them. That would be the right thing for him to do. Damn the politics.

Chuck said: “No you are wrong, we are taking the republican party to a state level near you next term…very near you! ”

Let me see if I can figure out what you are trying to say here. hmmm You are bringing the Republican Party to a State near me? mmm Oregon? Idaho? Or did you mean to a “level” near me. I have a leve hanging in my garage. Did you mean that level? hmmm or did you mean a “level state”, maybe like Iowa or Nebraska? Aren’t the Republicans already in those states?

Here’s just a few reasons. Try not to swallow, your KoolAid is tainted.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D – MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED–THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

The most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives.

Osama bin Laden’s military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn’t actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he’s still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.

It’s what happened in Somalia, isn’t it? And it’s what happened in Vietnam, too.

But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there’s still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn’t mean that the others aren’t still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam’s forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

I heard an interview with the father of the soldier that led the soldiers, including Mrs. Sheehans son, on the rescue mission that took Casey’s life. He said that Casey was in the first line of soldiers who volunteered for the mission. According to this soldier, Casey believed in the overall mission in Iraq, and was more than willing to put himself in harms way for some of his fellow soldiers. He was and should always be remembered as an American Hero, not as a martyr.

Ass… I didn’t ask for a list of people that Bush lied to, nor do I care about what Clinton or his people said. I asked why are we there? It appears from your post that the answer is that Sadaam had, or was developing WMDs. So where are they? Where are they? That is the question. If the answer to the first question is WMDs, then the second question is, Where are they? Where are they? I ask you. Please tell me. Where are they? Bottom line is that a President is responsible for his own decisions. He has to explain to US why he does things. He cant say “Because Teddy Kennedy thought they had weapons” he cant say “Because Kerry thought they had WMDs”. He cant say “Bill Clinton thought he was a bad guy too” He has to explain to US why HE did it. There were never any WMDs, and there were enough intelligence to at least give him pause. There was NO OTHER REASON for him to invade. And if the first reason was not true, then he LIED TO US. I don’t care whether Clinton lied to us. It’s not about him. And it’s not about Vietnam. I just want to know where are the WMDs? If they are not there, HE LIED. Get it?

BF – No one has said he was a martyr. Geez, where do you get your news from. The question is: Why won’t the President talk to her? Is he scared? Is it just politics? Once again, the cold stone wall between us and our government…

Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn’t mean that the others aren’t still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam’s forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

Reply to 54: If I understand your position correctly it is “We have discussed all of the issues and have come to the correct conclusions. Anyone who disagrees is either ignorant, evil or both.” Please continue with your closed minded, arrogant, bigoted approach, you will continue to lose elections, and the nation will be better for it.

Asswipe – So our war is NOW against terrorist sponsored states? But the Pres said it was WMDs… Now which one was it? And don’t think that just because you post in bold letters, that makes your opinion any more valid.

There was NO REASON to invade. There were no WMDs. And if he wanted to invade states supporting terrorism, Iraq would have been, at the time, about last on the list of countries in the region. Saudi Arabia would have been first, followed by Afghanistan, then Syria, hell even Yemen was higher than Iraq. Nope, not buying that spin either…

Just admit there was NO REASON. And because of that, he needs to be impeached.

Assstink – The Pres has got a five week vacation. Can’t he find five minutes to talk to this grieving mom. Maybe it would help her, maybe at least she could get it off her chest, and it would keep her from going to jail. He won’t because he is a moral coward.

2) All fearless leader’s policies are working SO WELL!! The economy is in the tank, we are losing about 16 of our brave men and women in uniform PER WEEK (1900/104), blowing 45 Billion Dollars per MONTH on a “failed search for weapons of mass distruction”, ruining the esteem this Great Nation is held in throughout the world, completely de-stabilizing possibly THE most dangerous region on earth and creating the opportunity for terrorist groups to recruit THOUSANDS of warrior-fanatics. Not to mention rampant corporate take over of domestic institutions, degradation of the environment and erosion of civil liberties and workers protections. Ya’ know, other than that, and the fact that he comes across as a little STUPID, I guess things are going OK.

Well if you’re looking for a “referendum” on how the corruption conservatives are doing that Ohio Congressional race don’t bode so well for yer guys. And chimpy’s 38% ain’t no kind of coattails to be ridin’ on. Looks like that Emperor is nekkid.

Asscrap – Also, Bush said he would fire anyone who was “involved” with the CIA agent outing. Not anyone who was “convicted”, not anyone who was “indicted” but anyone who was “involved”. It is pretty clear now that Rove was “involved” so why is he still working there? Just another lie?

BF – I don’t doubt he volunteered. And of course, I would venture that Moveon.org would have some believe that ALL the soldiers who die in Iraq are martyrs. (which is why one shouldn’t listen to exteme news media on either side) I don’t believe ANY of them are martyrs. I believe they are all courageous young American soldiers. Period.

Iraq was removed in 2004. Your post not only begs the question as to why we still are in Iraq, but why we aren’t currently at war with Cuba, Iran (although that might happen soon, but it won’t really have anything to do with terrorism), Libya (with whom we now have diplomatic relations), North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

Granted, the administration could expand its criminal Iraq war to encompas both Syria and Iran, further overextending our military in the process, and risking radical destabilization of the entire region. But how would they then deal with having to fight wars with those more removed nations, or deal with the very real nuclear risk from North Korea, or the even more real risk of large scale mortar attacks on Seoul should they venture military action there? Hmmmmm???

Dr. E: It may have escaped your notice, but we are no longer at war with Iraq. We are protecting Iraq from Al Queida and thier allies. The war when it was waged was authorized by UN resolution (in spite of France’s back stabbing efforts to protect thier rice bowl), so it was not illegal.

I love how the left people, like the owner of this blog, when faced with issues that require thought, can only spew swear words and tripe. Laugh Out Loud at you Horses Ass! Cuz that’s about all your worth.

I realize that a lot of folks on the right seem to think that those of us who do not support the war, or this president, or his administrations policies get our marching orders and take off in lock-step based on a few monolithic institutions. “Moveon.org” seems to be one of the targets of the fevered right.

*************************************************************** P.S. Dear Calvus, Please pick up that ewe that seems to be your girlfriend and move along. The intellectual waters around here will be a little over your head.

I didn’t say we were at war with Iraq. I asked why we are still there. It may have escaped your attention, but there was no sizeable Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq previous to the US invasion. Now, thanks to the chaos that has ensued after the US invasion, terrorism/guerrilla warfare has proliferated. The honus is on us for that, since we created the conditions under which it has flourished.

I think your characterization of the US presence as “protecting” Iraq is rather misfounded (it sounds rather like a Sean Hannity talking point); I’d rather characterize it as damage control. We removed the authoritarian regime that was the sole source of order in that country, leaving nothing in its wake, and further having no plan to restore order.

As for the legality of the US invasion, that is cause for dispute. UN resolution 1441 threatened “serious consequences” for Iraq’s non-compliance, without specifying what those consequences would be. Thus, the war was not explicitly authorized by UN resolution, thereby rendering the US invasion a violation of international law.

Moveon.org is a George Soros, very left wing Bush hating website. There is nothing other then left wing propoganda available on that site. For the same reason I stay away from heavily right wing sites. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

I don’t know about any of the other posters here, but I suspect many of you disagree with your parents views often as I do.

What if Casey Sheehan believed in what he was doing, wanted to be in Iraq, made the choice as an adult, etc.? Wouldn’t you lefties get the ACLU cavalry all over any other parent that tried to deny the right of an 18 year old to make a choice for himself?

Imagine for example if Goldy’s mom came out against gays. Would Goldy exploit her words for cheap political gain?

Great point. While my sympathies go to Mrs. Sheehan and all who lose loved ones, the left has gone overboard when talking about parents sending their children to fight GW’s war. If the kid is 12-15 years old and female, the left wants her abortion to be a secret with regards to her parents. It is “her body” and she is “mature” enough to make life and death decisions without parental intervention or knowledge. Now when actual adults of 18+ years decide to volunteer for military duty we are supposed to believe the left wing thinks the parents are in control of their 18 year-old’s body. A little consistency please.

I think you’re missing the point entirely. It’s not whether an 18 year old was responsible for his choice to join the military. The question is the legal and moral justification for the war in which 1800+ military personnel have been killed. There’s no inconsistency there, nor is there any grief exploitation.

Only hardline partisans think UN Resolution 1441 is a clear issue — whether for or against the war. What muddies the waters further is the fact that those in the UN who were the most against it (France, Russia, Anan, et al.) are also those who’ve been found to have ties to illegal shenanigans (Oil-for-Food, etc.). Nobody comes out of this smelling like a rose.

Thank you for the link. Reading it confirms how ineffective the UN is with the likes of Iraq’s Saddam. I did not see anything that spells out the legality of Saddam’s Kuwait romp, nor GW’s Iraq romp. It appears that whatever the UN likes at the time is OK, whatever they don’t is not. That did not leave much wiggle room when so many on the Security Council had Saddam’s hand in their pockets with Oil-for-kickbacks.

‘There’s no inconsistency there, nor is there any grief exploitation.’

Surely you jest. If not for the grief exploitation this post would not have been written by Goldy. There is plenty to debate on the topic you think this is regarding, yet Goldy, Air America et-al harp on the poor families who a)lost sons and daughters in Iraq and b)tout the talking points of the left wing / hate-GW crowd.

‘Do you think that means the President may be tried by an international tribunal for war crimes?’

This is not so bad. The worst thing that could happen is trade sanctions, as in Iraq during the 90’s, which would give the union vote to repubs in 2008.

@ 120

‘we usually just ignore them around here’

This is actually quite obvious, even when you do try to answer a question or refute a point. I do like it though, at least when I think of the possibility that the newer generation of lefties are evolving into new “60s” radicals with fewer non-profane words in their vocabulary.

So does it make it okay that we are adding to the death toll halfway around the globe as retribution for those killed here? Is it acceptable that we inflict more suffering to a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11?!?

Come on RUFUS, the deaths from the WTC don’t justify a bullshit war and the body count it’s created…not for a single moment.

But it’s not about justification; it’s about a “leader” who should HAVE THE BALLS TO SHOW COMPASSION as a parent, fellow human being or just as some fool in the spotlight.

Tell me how many times that dufus has gone to the country he’s trying to “liberate”?….oh, pardon me, rescue us from his WMD. Just WHERE IS Bin Ladin? Wasn’t HE the “mastermind”?

You righities can spin all this away all you want, but you CANNOT escape the facts that the majority of the country is NOT in agreement with your propaganda.

Osama isn’t single-handedly responsible for all of the terror — or even all of the radical Islamic terror — in the world. Capturing or killing him would only be a symbolic victory (and always has been). Getting him AND his #2, #3, etc. henchmen would help significantly.

There are NO EASY SOLUTIONS. We could give all the food, water and shelter to every starving person of the world and someone, somewhere will always have a problem with it. The Left needs to face the fact that unless we install a hardline Muslim clerics as supreme dictators, the terrorists will NEVER like the West.

The problem is like Michael Jordan in his heyday — you can’t stop him, you can only hope to contain him.

My understanding of the UN charter is that such violations of international law should be held accountable, and the ICC was set up to deal with such violations. Its purview includes, among other things crimes of agression and war crimes. The former is still, to my knowledge, not clearly defined due to conflicting opinions; rather there is a draft statute with two possible definitions of what constitutes crimes of aggression. To my understanding, in the absence of a clear UN Resolution permitting the use of force in Iraq, the Bush administration would probably be guilty of crimes of aggression under either of these proposed definitions.

As for war crimes, the administration would probably also be found guilty under at least two of the four categories defined in the draft statute.

Since we are not signatories to the ICC, the administration will probably not be held accountable, nor be investigated. In this light, I continue to find the administrations rationale for not joining the ICC suspect; I also find suspect the attempt to quash access to further Abu Ghraib documents and testimony that point to violations of the Geneva Convention.

My chief disagreement with the Neo-Con view in this regard is that we are attempting to place the US above the rule of international law, which I believe to be very dangerous — not specifically because it is the US, but because it is a large, powerful nation that is apparently flouting the tenuous establishment of an international, civilized order.

‘..the Bush administration would probably be guilty of crimes of aggression under either of these proposed definitions.’

I think you would have to include all of the countries and their leaders who participated in the Iraq action. I also think that the circumstances involving Iraq in the previous 10 years would lessen the impact on any international law, even if one thinks international law should apply.

‘I continue to find the administrations rationale for not joining the ICC suspect;’

Most on my side of the issues find joining the ICC suspect in terms of how ineffective, politically motivated and wanna-be-socialistic these bodies tend to be. We can agree to disagree.

‘I also find suspect the attempt to quash access to further Abu Ghraib documents and testimony that point to violations of the Geneva Convention.’

Although there is debate about whether the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists, I am not sure the access “quash” involved the trials and such going on. I thought the access is being denied to the media, as we all know how many Americans could be killed when they are used as propaganda for terrorists, Air America, the ACLU, etc. Is the information you refer to actually being witheld from the legal process involving the crimes?

‘..above the rule of international law, which I believe to be very dangerous’

I would venture to guess that the US has done more than any country in history to help develop and enforce the laws of the world. It is quite a stretch to act is if the US intentions are now, or have ever in recent history been on the same level as the USSR, China or Iraq. As I only associate the term “Neo-Con” with shrill knee-jerk comments from the left, I cannot comment on how well I fit the billing. For the purposes of domestic politics I can only assume that it is a badge of honor. I may recant when I find out what it really means. (I will look outside of HA for the answer so that I do need to plug my ears/eyes.)

10/2/99 – Dow, 10273; NASDAQ, 2736. It was the Dow’s 6th straight weekly decline. The last time this occurred was 7/16/90-8/24/90.

8/9/05 – Dow 10,615.67 Nasdaq 2,174.19

Once again:

Strong US economy fuels job creation in July WASHINGTON (AFP) – US employment creation powered ahead in July with an extra 207,000 jobs added to reinforce signs of robust growth in the world’s biggest economy, the government said. US Treasury Secretary John Snow said the report “is another significant indicator that America’s economy is expanding.”

“Combined with several recent reports indicating steady non-inflationary increases in economic activity, this shows that the fundamentals of our economy are strong and that we are continuing on a positive path of growth and prosperity,” he said.

Earlier on Tuesday, Investor’s Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence said their monthly economic optimism index rose to 50.9 in August from 48.6 in July, bolstered by consumers’ rosier view of their personal finances.

Confidence in US economy rises in August Tue Aug 9, 2005 10:00 AM ET NEW YORK, Aug 9 (Reuters) – U.S. consumers’ were more optimistic about the economy in August than the previous month even as gasoline prices rose to record highs, according to a survey released on Tuesday. Investor’s Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence said their economic optimism index rose 2.3 points to 50.9 from July’s 48.6. A reading above 50 indicates optimism while a reading below 50 indicates pessimism.

“Consumer confidence has clearly turned up,” Terry Jones, associate editor at Investor’s Business Daily said in a release.

Strong hiring shows depth of expansion NEW YORK – A growing United States economy is starting to soak up the ranks of the unemployed.

A healthy job market has important implications for the economy – from Federal Reserve policy to the mood on Main Street. More workers add buying power, sustaining the economic recovery. Job growth also increases the amount of taxes collected, which could help reduce the federal budget deficit. It could also help wages increase, which will help consumers keep up with rising interest rates and higher fuel prices.

“Job creation is the lifeblood of the economy and it’s flowing very good right now,” says Anthony Chan, an economist at JPMorgan Asset Management in Columbus, Ohio. “You have everything working right.”

The economy is more than you having enough for your daily toot, kiddo.

not only is she demeaning her son’s memory…she is LYING. how sad is that? you guys should do a little more reading…sadly for her latest BS-a-thon there is a record of what she said about the meeting before. she has completely changed her story, and it’s not grief …it’s POLITICS. now…that’s sad.

“marks… you callous shitheel, she had no idea at the first meeting that Bush was a drugged out thug. She was a grieving Mother,expecting intelligence and compassion from the president of the USA, you shitferbrains!

Crucify a Mother of a dead soldier you asshole!

Gary, may you die of a slow painful illness you follower of evil.

Comment by Donnageddon— 8/8/05 @ 10:59 pm”

WOW…….anger management and lessons in manners on the horizon for you anytime soon? and for someone who claims to be a peace loving leftie against war you sure do threaten other people’s lives an awful lot don’t you? always with the violence. come on…admit it…you key people’s cars that have bumper stickers you don’t like don’t you? and “drugged out thug?” oh come on…aren’t you thinking of JFK?

xmasghost – is there NOTHING you won’t defile to advance your political cause? The point is Why won’t Bush talk to her? Is he scared? Couldn’t he at least console a grieving mother? Is he too busy chopping brush? Why won’t he talk to her? Why?

You’re welcome. I should have added that that is just my opinion, based on my limited reading on the matter. I’m not an expert on international law, and would certainly be interested to consider other points of view from legal professionals with real expertise in that area.

138 – I certainly don’t want anyone to get the wrong opinion. I love this country, and served it for many years. But I think we need to set a good example to poor, underdeveloped countries by letting them see that justice CAN be done. Even to the highest and the mightiest. It is one of the biggest foundations upon which our country was founded. Not even the President is above the law. They need to see that they can in fact throw these guys out, if only they have the courage…. JMHO

fire_one..no, the proverbial cat does not have my tongue…..some of us just have work to do. may i ask you this in response to your question…”is there nothing i won’t do to advance my political cause”…..are you serious? what political cause would that be exactly? aren’t you assuming an awful lot here? if honesty is a political “cause”, then i sure am guilty. bullshit is bullshit and even if you have had a loved one die that does not make bullshit any less than just that. the woman is a political tool…in every sense of the word. her son joined the military volluntarily and now she is the one besmirching his memory.he obviously believed in what he was doing and in his country. no one lied or tricked anyone into this war. just because moveon.commie says it alot does not make it true. one of the silliest things ever said by liberals is “the president is a war criminal”. and you wonder why you keep losing elections? this war was going to happen and that’s just the way it is.

ghost – “…that’s just the way it is.” Well, we will just have to see about that. You see, we are not Germany in 1938. We know bull when we see it. We will take Bush to task for lying. We will take Bush to task for our dead children. You better believe it. It’s coming. We will not allow Heir Bush to take over our Nation, no matter what the brown shirts have to say….

Fire-One…I can’t figure you out. Are you along with donna,rujax and few select others voluntarily ignorant, suffering from mental retardation or just plain psychologically ill? The only thing that is coming is yet more Republican election victories so long as those amongst you who are clearly exisiting in some other universe keep claiming to represent anykind of viable “political” movement. I do however compliment you on your photo on the cover of this weeks Stranger. Very representative of those of you who claim to be “progressive” when in fact you’re nothing more than a pathetic failure as a human being. What a joke your life must be…

fire_one and rujax……..wow…you two can sure be depended on to say nah nah nah instead of really answering anything, can’t you? number one…in 1938 with your attitude you would have been on the wrong side. can’t you see that? the islamo-fascists were on hitler’s side with you guys. okay? number two…our dead children??? it’s an all volunteer military which i will presume leaves any of the liberal kids out. aren’t they sitting sipping latte’s while not solving the world’s problems…..but yacking alot? i have three sons.every woman in my family is a member of the DAR. WASP is our middle name. people that think the way you do not only never solved a problem but they didn’t found this country either. i take it you meant herr bush? oh, come on. get real. and you wonder why no one takes any of you seriously? george bush is a nazi? yes, and you are a republican. sheesh……. you want to know who the real nazis are [oh, i know you really don’t] why don’t you take a good hard look at the islamo-fascists. they LEARNED from hitler. and they have one track minds. have you noticed your kissing kin in san francisco [and evergreen “college”]…you know, the ones that wear the palestinian headscarves and hate jews? you lay down with dogs you get fleas.

It seems Cindy Sheehan has been co-opted, influenced and used by none other than Grief Pimps Michael Moore, Sam Husseini, Code Pink, the Crawford Peace House and the rest of the anti-American, anti-military, terrorist-sympathizing agitators contingent.

And now those very same Grief Pimps, along with the complicit media, are publicly emasculating Casey Sheehan in his grave by encouraging his mom to disrespect what he chose and what he gave his life for.

Sheehan’s father told the press in April 2004 that his son had re-enlisted the previous August, planned to make a career in the military, and “loved the Army because it gave him a chance to serve his country.” I can’t imagine Army Spc. Casey Sheehan would stand for his mother’s crazy accusations that he was murdered by his commander-in-chief, rather than the Iraqi terrorists who ambushed his convoy. I can’t imagine Army Spc. Casey Sheehan would stand for a bunch of strangers glomming onto his mother’s crusade and using him to undermine the war effort as they shouted “W killed her son” in front of countless TV cameras.

Remember the ‘soldier hung in effigy’ controversy, (silly me, I would think debacle, disgrace and/or debasement would be much more honest words)… it seems Cindy was there attending the anti-war “rally” (snicker). It turns out Cindy didn’t have a ‘Bush change of heart’ after all… she admitted she was AGAINST the war BEFORE her son died.

I wonder what Casey Sheehan would say about his mother’s actions–let alone her words.

fire_one—……..really, that little diatribe was so funny that i sent it off to several friends and they are still laughing too. although, i wonder at the vitriole that you spew. hate hate hate….we’ll get you, you’ll be sorry ad nauseum. didn’t you get past this type of thinking back in grade school, seriously?

“The real reason is that we have wanted/needed to tell Saudi to kiss off for some time, but needed a strategic position in the area to replace our Saudi positions. Saddam and his nose-thumbing at the UN provided a perfect opportunity.”

“Roger morphs in and out of many identities and carries on discussions with himself. Why you might ask?? Because he wants HorsesAss to appear to be a legitimate Blog with more than 5 contributors…and because Roger Roger Rabbit is a crazy FUCK with no life!”

the more i read HA the less i am worried about the far left ever gaining power again. take this classic comment from don/donna…..

“I can already tell that Gary is a Repug thug sent by RNC headquarters.

Comment by Donnageddon—” paranoia anyone? trolling web sites and making comments for pay because you are told to is not a GOP thing….that’s pure leftie. along with others stating that bush uses drugs, his daughters are tramps, the ever popular YOU MUST BE GAY, and f*&% you….. so much vitriole and hatred and judgement from the warm and fuzzy far left. you guys are just a hoot……..

Honestly, because I think they expected more support for the ouster of Saddam. Also, the other would require more of an overt middle finger to Saudi and we don’t want to tick them off publicly just yet.

Also, I think he’s in too deep on the WMD thing to say, “OK, so we weren’t totally up front with you guys…” The “ousting a mass-murdering dictator” part worked out.

Tell me, would you have supported going into Iraq if the stated reasons were “we need a strategic position in the area” and “as a bonus, we’re yanking out a mass-murdering dictator?”

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

No doubt about it. Bush’s approval is so low that he would not even be able to beat Clinton in 92. He will turn it around, after all he was the first president to get over 50% of the popular vote since 1988! He won by over 3 1/2 million votes which means he probably won by more than 4 million if you subtract all the fraudulent votes from the democrats.

fire_one said–Also, Bush said he would fire anyone who was “involved” with the CIA agent outing. Not anyone who was “convicted”, not anyone who was “indicted” but anyone who was “involved”. It is pretty clear now that Rove was “involved” so why is he still working there? Just another lie?

Fire_one, it is bad form to use quotation marks if you are not making a direct quotation. I believe the actual quotation you refer to is:

“I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.” –George Bush, September 30, 2003.

The fact that Valerie Plame, or anyone for that matter, works at the CIA is not classified information. For this matter to have been classified, she would have to be undercover at the time or within the past 5 years. She was not.

A Gold Star Mother gets arrested as a “national security threat” five miles away from a cowering President because she asked him to meet with her and talk about her son.

This is gonna be good.

Comment by Roger Rabbit—

“This is gonna be GOOD”? Man you ARE desperate, aren’t you? This is about a woman using the death of her own son to get some time in the spotlight while lying thru her America bashing teeth! “Gold Star Mother”? I’m glad you aren’t a movie critic. If Bush were “cowering”, you just might be pointing toward Mecca five times a day by now. What could possibly make her a security threat is not her. It’s the minions of mind-numb robots milling around her who might also want some time in the spotlight. You make no sense!

THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION. GEORGE BUSH LIED TO THE NATION AND THE WORLD. IF YOU BELIEVE HIS BULLSHIT, YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!!!

Soooo, Welcome aboard, Michael. We always ask new trolls if they get paid by the post or by the word. Just a little survey We’ve got going. Ghosty, sorry I took more than 4 letters, but I was never really able to follow instructions. Anyway, hit the scotch, don’t drive anywhere, and we’ll gleefully wait for indictments in the fall…oh, I forgot, the cowardly scion (lacking heart as well as brain) will pardon his handlers. So we’ll just have to impeach! Yippee!!! We’ll just take our 2006 House Majority out for a spinand see what she’ll do. THAT will be REAL FUN!

WASHINGTON – Iraqi army and police forces now have the lead security role in eight to 10 areas of Iraq, but it remains unclear when they’ll be prepared to take over security for the entire country, the Pentagon’s top military officer said Tuesday.

“It’s going to take time; nobody knows,” Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a Pentagon news conference. “It’s event-driven. It’s going to be driven by a lot of events.”

Sounds like you already have. Your brain must be awfully pickled to think anything even approaching impeachment will happen. Just bluster and wishful thinking on your part. Now you’re not only physically impotent, but politically, ethically and intellectually, too.

@160 – you’re just quoting the talking points written in the west wing. Your “Quote” is crap. Here’s a good one: “Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” — George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

You know, I think he was probably right. I think fire_one’s quote was accurate if not exact. Yours seems made up. It doesn’t match the references I can find for what el presidente originally said.

Here’s another point. What law was probably violated? Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 reads as follows:

“Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Also, your misinformation about Valerie Plame not being an agent is the worst sort of dishonest attack. The fact that you are so partisan you don’t care whether what you say is a fact is dispicable enough. To repeat the words of these chicken hawks and criminals attacking someone who has risked her life year after year for her country is the worst sort of cowardous.

The FACT is she was a NOC, a Non-Official agent. That’s the most vulnerable type of role to play. She was working at times in other countries without a genuine passport and if caught, she could have been tried and inprisoned or killed as a spy.

@171 – Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent

Who told us she was a covert agent, Karl Rove or Joe Wilson?

@171 – She was working at times in other countries without a genuine passport

Who told us this, Karl Rove or Joe Wilson?

@167 – THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION.

So what did all those Kurds die from when Saddam gassed them? And where did those missles that landed in Tel Aviv in 1991 come from if not Iraq? You can plausably say that “there are no weapons of mass distruction, but you can’t say there were no weapons of mass distruction; there were and Saddam used them. The question is, of course, what happened to them. According to the cease fire agreement in 1991 they were supposed to be destroyed in the presence of UN inspectors. That never happened.

@171 – I think fire_one’s quote was accurate if not exact. Yours seems made up.

The propaganda arm of the bush///I mean cheney administration, Faux News is REALLY gonna give me unbiased information. And this White Houise is really gonna spill the beans about their own fuckups. And CNN, which has turned into a Faux News wannabe doesn’t know what wtf to do.

You know what Mikey…REAL CIA Agents have come forward and said that Plame was a REAL NOC Agent. At least one embed has died because of this macho power play. An entire shell “company” and all the sources it has developed over the years has been comromised and destroyed. These “patriots” of yours are a bunch of treasonous partisan hacks. They’re worse. They’re traitors. They’re liars and thieves and YOU go do some research little boy before you go spoutin’ here. There’s bad ones here that love to smack down lil’ girlymen like you. ThanksforplayingHavvaniceday.

@173 So this entire speech is made up? Can I borrow your tin-foil hat?

“President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders President to the Travel Pool After Meeting with Business People University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois

2:10 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I want to thank the business leaders here from the Chicago area for sharing with me their concerns about our economy. I think it’s safe to say most people share the sense of optimism I do, but recognize there’s still work to be done, particularly when it comes to job creation.

We talked about good legal policy. We talked about the need for an energy plan. We talked about fair trade for American manufacturers. We talked about the need for China to make sure that China’s got a monetary policy which is fair. And I assured the leaders here that I would work to — I’d represent the manufacturing sector and the — all sectors of our economy when it comes to world trade.

The thing I’m concerned about is people being able to find a job. We put the conditions in place for good job creation, but I recognize there’s still people who want to work that can’t find a job. And we’re dedicated to hearing the voices of those folks and working hard to expand our economy.

And so I want to thank you all for taking time. Mr. Mayor, I wish the Cubs all the best. (Laughter.) I made a significant contribution to the Cubs, as you might recall —

PARTICIPANT: Sammy.

THE PRESIDENT: — when I was a — yes, Sammy Sosa. I’ll take great delight when they win.

PARTICIPANT: Thank you for Sammy.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming.

Let me answer a couple of questions, then we’ve got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn’t a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

And so I welcome the investigation. I — I’m absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There’s a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.

I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

Yes, let’s see, Kemper — he’s from Chicago. Where are you? Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan? (Laughter.) Wait a minute. That doesn’t seem fair, does it? (Laughter.)

Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q — have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him —

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there’s all kinds of allegations. You’ve heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information — outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we’ll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something — leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we’ve had them — there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is. And we’ve had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

The “culture” at the CIA pre-9/11 has been the source of many criticisms by the lefties aimed at the Bush folks. Now you want to rely on the words of washed-up has-beens who complained about the CIA’s preoccupation with scaring the public about terrorism. (Both during the Clinton and early Bush regimes.) These guys were the actual culprits in what later became the lefies battle cry regarding how Bush “ignored” early signs of Osama and 9/11. You cannot scream that Bush lied and/or ignored pre-9/11 signs of pending terrorism, and them worship the words of actual CIA-types who actually did ignore the threats, and have any credibility. Even on HA you should maintain at least the appearance of honesty and integrity.

Actually, upon reflection, I think Rove leaving the Bush administration would actually be a very good thing. He’s done what he needs to do … he won the election/majority … TWICE.

If he leaves, it opens the opportunity for him to join the RNC and kick even MORE democrat ass.

Rove vs arrrrgggghhhhhhhh Dean… no contest! I like that plan.

(Note to Karmalyzed, LOL, Thanks! Let’s make it down in Portland where our discretionary dollars won’t reward Illegitimate Queen Chrissy, her Lady-in-waiting Sims, or any of her court jesters in Olympia and beyond)

While in Portland you are likely to see WA license plates aplenty. Now that a carton of cigs is $10 less in OR and the gas a little cheaper the bridges are flooded with “casual” shoppers. Not that I think anyone should avoid WA taxes.

@173 – The whitehouse.gov website has verbatim transcripts of each and every public speech the president makes. Are you saying they faked this one? Can I borrow your tin foil hat? And your claim is the first that I have heard that CNN is part of the vast right wing conspiracy. :)

While in Portland you are likely to see WA license plates aplenty. Now that a carton of cigs is $10 less in OR and the gas a little cheaper the bridges are flooded with “casual” shoppers. Not that I think anyone should avoid WA taxes. -Comment by NoWonder— 8/10/05 @ 10:47 am

Did you know that Florida is one of the 12 states that has instituted a Back to School tax freedom period for families.

Yep!

These states take a brief break from collecting sales tax on items ranging from clothing to school supplies to personal computers. These so-called tax-free holidays last anywhere from one day to more than a week and, in many cases, local jurisdictions also forgo collection of their additional sales-tax assessments.

Could we ever expect anything like this from our oh so kind, middle America family concerned demogogues…er, democrats?

Thanks for the object lesson! The discourse here proves the point, and Christmas Ghost is right on. The left is bankrupt of the ideas, maturity, morality, and common sense to sustain them unless they are supported by the right. The children of spoiled petulant indulgent child/parents, they are spoiled petulant forever-adolescents lashing out at authority over nothing. The more Bush succeeds the more frantic liberals get, the more wacky and incongruous liberal lies and rhetoric becomes, and the more sensible honest people loose interest in their simple-minded causes. Any connection with reality, facts, or rationality is lost to intentional ignorance and scurrilous invective. Proven false at every turn, they simply ignore the facts and MOVEON. The comments made here assure me that as a conservative, I am certainly on the right track. Nothing else useful will ever come from this website.

Have fun bobbing for brown trout in your cesspool; I’m off to take a shower.

Thanks for your supercilious comments. You seem to have no problem making blanket statemtents.

“The left is bankrupt of the ideas, maturity, morality, and common sense to sustain them unless they are supported by the right. “ Prove it. While you’re at it, prove your next sentence to be true as well.

“The more Bush succeeds the more frantic liberals get, the more wacky and incongruous liberal lies and rhetoric becomes, and the more sensible honest people loose interest in their simple-minded causes.” Give me evidence of Bush’s success on policy matters, and while you’re at it, who benefits form these policies and why. Then, give me examples of “incongruous liberal lies and rhetoric.” (That might be entertaining.)“Any connection with reality, facts, or rationality is lost to intentional ignorance and scurrilous invective. Proven false at every turn, they simply ignore the facts and MOVEON.” Back up your statements here with factual evidence, please.

133“I think you would have to include all of the countries and their leaders who participated in the Iraq action. Initially, perhaps, although I think that any action taken against nations like Eritrea, the Solomon Islands, or Palau would be pretty minimal.

I also think that the circumstances involving Iraq in the previous 10 years would lessen the impact on any international law, even if one thinks international law should apply. Well, I would think the context of previous SC resolutions would be taken into account.

Most on my side of the issues find joining the ICC suspect in terms of how ineffective, politically motivated and wanna-be-socialistic these bodies tend to be. I don’t know what the ICC could really have to do with Socialism; as for being ineffective, it could probably only be as effective as its signatory members allow it to be. As for being politically motivated, I think the ICC has proven itself to be quite neutral in dealing with Milosevic.

I thought the access is being denied to the media, as we all know how many Americans could be killed when they are used as propaganda for terrorists, Air America, the ACLU, etc. Is the information you refer to actually being witheld from the legal process involving the crimes?

The legal process of which I was speaking does not yet exist, i.e. legal proceedings at the ICC on matters of international law. Not all of the people at prisons such as Abu Ghraib are terrorists, by the way; if there is any doubt as to their status they should be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention.

‘..above the rule of international law, which I believe to be very dangerous’

I would venture to guess that the US has done more than any country in history to help develop and enforce the laws of the world. Although that certainly is possible, I would hesitate to associate such actions with some sort of altruism on behalf of the US. The recent (i.e. 20th-century) history of this country shows too many instances of the contrary, whether it be inaction on situations of little geopolitical/strategic value (such as the Rwanda genocide), or action on situations of questionable (but perhaps “symbolic”) value (such as Reagan’s invasion of Grenada). Too often, US interests, which are often defined by US business interests, trump altruistic idealism in matters of foreign affairs — this is especially prevalent in the Bush administration in my view. The list of 20th-century coups and regime changes supported or even executed by the US government demonstrates these tendencies fairly well.

As I only associate the term “Neo-Con” with shrill knee-jerk comments from the left, I cannot comment on how well I fit the billing. Neoconservatism is not a new term, but has hit the radar screens pretty hard since this administration has come to power. There are numerous definitions of its political philosophy available (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....ed_States)) as well as statements of principles and policy positions by neocons now involved in the administration (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). I’m not sure how many traditional Republicans would really identify with their agenda.

I ask them to be specific, because I really don’t want to assume what their reasoning for doing so is. I can speculate, but I’d rather the person making the statement put their thoughts to “pixel” so that we may have a meaningful dialouge.

As the adage goes when you speak (or in the case type) your mind is on parade.

I heard interviews with two family members of other fallen soldiers who were in the room with President Bush and Mrs. Sheehan. They both said that the President was very caring and respectful.

They are very angry with her, because they feel that her rhetoric is hurting the memory of their family members who have given their lives for a fight that they believed in.

I was not alive during the Vietnam era, but it sounds like the rhetoric from the left is the same. Please don’t do to our soldiers what your predecessors did to the Vietnam vets. If we cut and run, thousands of innocent people will be killed, just like the Cambodians.

Do your own work, and believe whatever you like. I have no problem making “blanket statemtents” [sic] because they are all too easy to back up. My question in return is two fold. First, why would President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan when she has lied and insulted him for profoundly idiotic (“tell President Bush to pull American troops out of Iraq now”) partisan reasons? Of course he won’t, but that proves nothing whatsoever about Bush and everything about liberals like Sheehan and her ilk.

In the same character, why would I waste my time proving anything to you when it is implicitly obvious from your questions that you are predisposed to ignore the facts? I couldn’t care any less what you think. However, it is both quite clear and quite humorous why you circulate at this web site.

I wonder if RogerRabbit was one of these ACLU blinded lawyers at DOD who personally stopped the arrest of of the 9/11 hijackers well prior to the event. They were more worried about the PR of the Clinton Administration then they were the well being of this country.

Did DoD lawyers blow the chance to nab Atta?

By Jacob Goodwin In September 2000, one year before the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, a U.S. Army military intelligence program, known as “Able Danger,” identified a terrorist cell based in Brooklyn, NY, one of whose members was 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, and recommended to their military superiors that the FBI be called in to “take out that cell,” according to Rep. Curt Weldon, a longtime Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who is currently vice chairman of both the House Homeland Security and House Armed Services Committees.

The recommendation to bring down that New York City cell — in which two other Al Qaeda terrorists were also active — was not pursued during the weeks leading up to the 2000 presidential election, said Weldon. That’s because Mohammed Atta possessed a “green card” at the time and Defense Department lawyers did not want to recommend that the FBI go after someone holding a green card, Weldon told his House colleagues last June 27 during a little-noticed speech, known as a “special order,” which he delivered on the House floor.

Details of the origins and efforts of Able Danger were corroborated in a telephone interview by GSN with a former defense intelligence officer who said he worked closely with that program. That intelligence officer, who spoke to GSN while sitting in Rep. Weldon’s Capitol Hill office, requested anonymity for fear that his current efforts to help re-start a similar intelligence-gathering operation might be hampered if his identity becomes known.

The intelligence officer recalled carrying documents to the offices of Able Danger, which was being run by the Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa, FL. The documents included a photo of Mohammed Atta supplied by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and described Atta’s relationship with Osama bin Laden. The officer was very disappointed when lawyers working for Special Ops decided that anyone holding a green card had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen. Thus, the information Able Danger had amassed about the only terrorist cell they had located inside the United States could not be shared with the FBI, the lawyers concluded.

“We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn’t exist,” the intelligence officer told GSN.

DoD lawyers may also have been reluctant to suggest a bold action by FBI agents after the bureau’s disastrous 1993 strike against the Branch Davidian religious cult in Waco, TX, said Weldon and the intelligence officer.

“So now, Mr. Speaker,” Weldon said on the House floor last June, “for the first time I can tell our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New York cell of Mohammed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell.”

Michael @175 nope, I suspect he DID say that at one point. Still on June 10 2004 he said something different.

Q Given — given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?

THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to —

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

@197 How is that any different from “THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.” –George Bush, September 30, 2003

Never has the president made any indication that he will preempt the investigation and start firing people willy-nilly. He has been very consistent: let the investigation take its course; if the investigation concludes that someone did something wrong, then we will deal with that person.

No he hasn’t. There is a difference between ‘Yes I will fire anyone who leaked this specific persons name to the press as an agent’ and ‘I will do what I think is appropriate about a leak.’

What the hell is appropriate? Give Rove a medal for confirming information to the press that lead the the closure of a CIA assett? Note, few reporters will go with a story from a single source, so it did require Rove’s confirmation for this shitstorm to happen whether he did it first or not. And whether or not Plame was not active as an agent at the time is irrelevent, her name was linked to a CIA cover organization and publicly linking her to the CIA blew that cover for everyone in that org.

Let me make this clear, Bush is not the CEO of a corporation where when someone screws up you give them a lecture then fire any low level people who know about it. Rather he is the president of all of the US (not just the president of the moral majority) who is responsible for and to all of us to keep his word and to prevent exactly this sort of leak.

@199 There is a difference between ‘Yes I will fire anyone who leaked this specific persons name to the press as an agent’ Once again, that isn’t what he said. You conveniently substitute “this specific person’t name” for what he really said, “classified information.” Valerie Plame’s name is not classified information.

@199 Plame was not active as an agent at the time is irrelevent, her name was linked to a CIA cover organization and publicly linking her to the CIA blew that cover for everyone in that org. Plame was linked to the CIA WMD program when her husband (they were well known to be married, their picture was on the cover of Vanity Fair) came home and wrote op-ed stories in newspapers about his super-secret mission in Africa to search for information about WMDs. Even if it was never known that Plame herself was involved in the CIA WMD program, she was permanantly tainted and could never go undercover again because it was on the front page of every newspaper that her husband was.

Read it again, that IS what he said. You might try reading the context and find out what ‘the agent’ is refering too. Aso, you may try, when attempting to refer to what I said by reading the WHOLE thing, not the part that goes away when your ADD kicks in, I said ‘specific persons name AS AN AGENT’. A persons name itself is not classified and to imply that it is rather stupid.

Did you really think that an agent would never be on the cover of a newspaper? It does not matter if people know someones name, what matters is if they know that the person is an agent. You can keep dreaming, but unless youve got some source that publicly identified her as an agent prior to 2003 your just practicing revisionist history.

@201 – You can keep dreaming, but unless youve got some source that publicly identified her as an agent prior to 2003 your just practicing revisionist history.

Do you mean other than this one?

CIA officer named prior to columnBy Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.http://washingtontimes.com/nat.....-4033r.htm

Have we already move to the “The Washington Times is all lies, end of story” phase of the discussion? I am kind of slow at this. Can somebody warn me when we get the “your stupid, har har” phase, I don’t have that much experience talking to liberals.

rujax206@ 173 said…..”You know what Mikey…REAL CIA Agents have come forward and said that Plame was a REAL NOC Agent. At least one embed has died because of this macho power play.”

at LEAST one?????? is that like having 2.5 children? at least one embed huh? and you would know this how? even after death, cia agents are only given a star on a wall….no names are used. do your homework. valerie plame was nothing but a desk monkey analyst married to a loser trying to get attention. and this is the best you have? so where is this story now huh? funny…it doesn’t seem to have any legs.

HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS@ 187..thank you! i knew that i remembered clinton having someone arrested by the secret service for using free speech. after all…he was also the dim bulb that asked “what the hell are they doing up there” when the air force did a fly over while he was bringing the white trash circus to town in DC. one of his handlers had to point out “sir…they are OURS now” wow….scary that the lefties think of this user as mecca. however…keep it up guys.

donnageddon @176….i get you now. you are one of those people that carry a sign that says “no war… unless a democrat is in the whitehouse”???? after all the democrats brought us the most fab war of all…..vietnam. what a good idea that was.

xmasG @ 211 “donnageddon @176â€¦.i get you now. you are one of those people that carry a sign that says â€œno warâ€¦ unless a democrat is in the whitehouse”????”

You get no one, xamsG, I supported the war in Afghanistan ( I just didn’t realize that Bush wasn’t sincere in actually defeating the Taliba and getting Bin Laden)

Vietnam? Horrible war! Real stain on both Kennedy, and Johnson’s resumes. If I were more than a toddler when it was going on, I would have protested that war during both administrations (ansd of course Nixon’s)

This statement in effect negates the purpose of your asking the previous two questions, so I won’t waste my time responding to them.

“it is implicitly obvious from your questions that you are predisposed to ignore the facts”

Scanning my previous post to you, I find a series of requests for you to explain your positions (which you now have indicated you are unwilling to do), but no “questions” that “implicitly” show a predisposition to ignore “the facts”.

You and I have nothing further to discuss, please don’t bother to respond.

rujax…be sure to send the kurdish people a card telling them they IMAGINED the whole gas attack “thing”…okay? i mean sarin gas would never be considered a weapon of mass destruction now would it? a little more reading and a little less chit chat for you….. the sad thing is…you would be the first one to scream bloody murder and want to nuke all of the middle east if seattle [or wherever YOU live] were attacked.

BTW, xmasG, you know that loser, valeris plame’s husband? George Walker Bush called him “a “truly inspiring” diplomat who exhibited “courageous leadership” by facing down Hussein and helping to gain freedom for the Americans before the 1991 war began.”

So proudass and Ghosty are ganging up on ol’Rujax…man, I am just crumpling under the combined weight of the twatitude it’s almost too much for an crusty old librul like me. But I’m tough. Like Michael. I really respect a guy who can keep promoting the most inane and discredited gooper talking points (BTW anybody see o’liely get demolished by ANOTHER deceased soldier’s mom on his show today…SWEET!!!) just like…well, like he was being paid (c’mon guys…you don’t really believe the shit these cretins pull out of their ass…oh, you do???…oh Jeez). Hey Mikee, do you know a guy named pacman??? Ever been seen in the same room together? Never mind. This is the same bullshit you clowns have been spewing for the last…well, I’ve been around since November. And oh, how things are getting better for chimpy and the banana peel gang…more destruction, more chaos, more death, less democracy, more lies, more scandal, more, more, more. More Pork!!! More tax cuts for the richest 2% (THAT’s why you like these jerks so much ghostposty; btw, are you a Blethen???) And more slavering obedience from the clueless minority. I think the smirking one just passed tricky dick in the “Race to the Bottom of the Polls” with a hefty 38% approval. But chimpy doesn’t read polls. Good thing. He’s still stuck on “My Pet Goat”. Bet he wishes he could score another “trifecta” in Tribeca (too many of them NuYerkers anyway).

OK dumbshits, here’s one for ya, let’s leave aside the usual crap we snipe about I challenge you to defend this:

***************************************************************

It can be fairly stated that many of America’s 1,800 dead and 14,000 wounded were killed because they were riding in unarmored or lightly armored vehicles that are totally inappropriate to the nature of the war and enemy we are fighting.

This while the heaviest and deadliest divisions in the world’s best Army were being ordered to leave most of their best equipment – the M1A2 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles – parked at their home bases in orderly ranks.

This while the highly trained crews of those vehicles were ordered to dismount and become infantry to patrol the most dangerous streets and roads in the world in unarmored Humvees.

We are spending $5 billion a month on this war -much of it siphoned away and sucked up by private contractors – but somehow we can’t send our soldiers and Marines to war with the best equipment in the world – the equipment we already own and know how to use to great effect.

Don’t tell me we are going to stay the course. We are on the wrong course and it only leads deeper into the quicksand. Tell me how we are going to change course. Tell me how we are going to do everything we can, spend whatever it takes, to give our sons and daughters what they need to fight and survive and prevail even in a war that makes no sense.

Tell me we can at least do that. Tell me that you made some serious mistakes, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President and Mr. Secretary of Defense, and that you are willing to do everything to correct those mistakes.

Uhhh Ghosty (don’t hit me, please, you get awful worked up ya know) (whispering, barely audible) That saddam, he got that stuff from us. 41 knew all about it and didn’t give a shit then, so why’re ya’all getting so worked up about it now? Just askin’. In fact 41 said he was gonna back all those dead folks in an uprising against hussein. Just can’t trust a bush can ya?

Donnageddon and rujax……like i said…more reading and less chit chat for you two. personally i thought the first president bush was not a very good president. too much of a diplomat[ which is really code for parlor snake with passport]…..no spine, made lot’s of mistakes…like selling gas to saddam.so yes…in your words i do mean that loser. although i wouldn’t have put it that way.loser should be reserved for the fords and carters in the presidential realm. and you two assuming that i am upset by you? aren’t you two the ones always threatening bodily harm and using a vocabulary that consists of all the four letter words[except for W-O-R-K] oh ,please. but thanks for the laugh. i know you WISH i were upset by you but i have a feeling that neither of you ever have that effect on anyone. your arguments are too simple and full of nah nah nah’s to really make a statement of any kind.other than you are blinded by partisan talking points and hate, sadly. coulter and hannity? it seems you spend more time listening to them than i do. i spend zero time doing that. i know…i hate to disappoint you this way….but you are assuming way too much. and neo con symp??? oh brother. that is so trite! can’t you do better than that? how about…”person that disagrees with me”…or would that be too mature and constructive for you? i really wish that you did have the facts on your side…or that you even knew them. then it would be an interesting conversation. i would really like that…

Donnageddon—@ 229…..need i say more, really? let me head you off at the [usual] pass here i am not gay i don’t drink [epilepsy kinda ruins that] i am not a christian i am not a right “wing nut” i really can’t think of any of the other and usual insults you use right now…but i’m sure they’ll come to me…. :)

xmasG, you and I both know that if we met on the job we would find each other to be fine people. I work for a major aerospace company with headquarters in Chicago. I interview, talk with, tell jokes to people of all political persuasions. Some of them are deep Republicans. My parents are Republicans. I love them.

I am pretty sure that if I met you at the Opera, a tavern, the grocery store, or post office, I would find you to be a fine, interesting and worthwhile person. Unless we talked politics. That would pretty much define a boundary. I would not talk to you about politics at work, the post office, the Opera… maybe at the tavern (but i know now you don’t drink)

The thing I am trying to say .. is .. this is horsesass.org. So when I tell you that I KNOW you are full of shit… take it as a promise. You are full of shit. And I back it up with evidence (re: Micheal’s post above about Clinton: meaningless drivel…) and I respect your attempts to back up your views with facts. But clearly, your “facts” are not based in reality…

donnageddon……….i really enjoyed your post and the last line made me laugh out loud. see? and for a few moments there you were actually being civil.was it that difficult really? i wish you had the facts on your side…but you don’t. lot’s of innuendo…that’s all. that’s where the lefties go wrong. at the same time they are saying “hang him i THINK he’s guilty” about a conservative, if a liberal is REALLY guilty you are too busy making excuses as to why he is to say “hang him”. kennedy, mcdermott, and others come to mind. it’s called intellectual integrity …and people will listen to you much more often if you have it and use it.

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president’s Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey’s aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks Ð Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Keith Olbermann asked Cindy Sheehan about the “family members” calling on her to give up the vigil. She says they are her in-laws, to whom she no longer speaks. She also says her husband supports her, which is not the story making rounds on rightie blogs today.

She’s a great representative for the forces of sanity and says if Bush doesn’t meet with her this August, she’s going to take the vigil to the White House. Yes!

@240 She says they are her in-laws So the father’s side of the family is somehow less relevant than the mother’s side?to whom she no longer speaks Gee, I wonder why?She also says her husband supports her How about he grow a pair and speak for himself? Is this one of those “we’re pregnant” families?

I am doing nothing to smear her, I just simply posted a letter from Casey Sheehan’s family. Earlier, I posted interviews from a fellow soldier, and I also posted information with interviews of other family members of other fallen soldiers discussing how respectful and caring the President was with them. (By the way, they were at the same meeting with the President as Mrs. Sheehan)

Their opinion is that she is the one who is “smearing” the memory of their loved ones.

I know that you will probably call those other family members “righties” and not consider their opinions valid. Why not then realize that Mrs. Sheehan is a “leftie” and take what she says with the same grain of salt?

there is nothing about YOUR arguments that convinces ME that you havs a shred of “common sense and intellectual integrity.”

It really doesn’t take a middle east scholar, a historian specializing in the last forty years of American history or a military strategist to come to the conclusion that invading this country without a plan to “win the peace” and “manage the occupation” was a blunder of historically monstrous proportions.

Say what you want assholes, but our solders are being slaughtered because of this incompetent and short-sighted leadership and guess what shitheads…if you support them then YOU are complicit. So here are ol’ Rujax’s new talking points…well, point actually. If you support Bush…YOU ARE A MURDERER. All good positions are simple. Get used to it.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.